SAN FRANCISCO'S FIRST GO AT INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING IN NOVEMBER ELECTIONIS MADE TOP PRIORITY FOR CfER

San Francisco is on track to use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) thisNovember; I'm very excited about the prospect and hope you are, too.The CfER board has officially resolved by unanimous consent thathelping San Francisco have a successful IRV election is our toppriority through November. We encourage all of our members to assistin this effort in any way possible. Please contact Thomas Krouse(tkrouse@k...) for more info and to volunteer.

I also want to let you all know what happened at the Annual GeneralMeeting on May 22nd. We had excellent presentations on the BerkeleyIRV victory by Kenny Mostern and the San Francisco IRV situation byCaleb Kleppner.

At the annual meeting we also elected our new board. Elected were (inalphabetical order) Steve Chessin, Rob Dickinson, June Genis, DaveHeller, Dave Kadlecek, Paula Lee, Pete Martineau, Julie Walters, andGabrielle Weeks. I note that we have five first-timers on the Board,two from Southern California. This brings much-needed new blood to theBoard. (We later appointed Thomas Krouse to the Board, in accordancewith our by-laws, as we had elected no Republicans. We had alsoelected no one from either Natural Law or the American IndependentParty. We have a lead on an AIP appointee and are looking for aNatural Law member.)

I note that Marda Stothers and Jim Lindsay did not run forre-election. Jim will remain active with CfER, but Marda and herhusband will be leaving for Ireland at the end of the year, and we willmiss her greatly. (Marda was concerned that with her departure, PaulaLee would be the only woman on the Board. Happily, that is not thecase.)

Also at the AGM we awarded our first-ever Wilma Rule Memorial Awards.Wilma was one of the earliest members of CfER, active on our Board Ibelieve from the very beginning, and active with the organization aslong as her health allowed. She passed away on January 15th of thisyear.

Wilma was an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the Universityof Nevada, Reno. She was the author or editor of at least four books:Russian Women in Politics and Society, The U.S. House ofRepresentatives: Reform or Rebuild?, United States Electoral Systems:Their Impact on Women and Minorities, and Electoral Systems inComparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, as wellas numerous articles, both scholarly and popular. A search of "WilmaRule" in Yahoo! turned up 167 hits. She was a strong believer inproportional representation, and was concerned that our growinginterest in IRV would distract us from our primary mission of PR. Tohonor her memory, we created the Wilma Rule Memorial Award, to be givento that person or persons whose work contributed to the advancement ofproportional representation in California.

At the AGM we gave out three Wilma Rule awards: to The AssociatedStudents of the University of California, Davis, for overwhelminglyadopting the Choice Voting Amendment to their Constitution in February2003, enabling them to elect their Senators using Choice Voting for thefirst time in November 2003, and again in February 2004; to CaseyPeters, for overseeing the Choice Voting elections of the KPFK LocalStation Board in Los Angeles, California; and to Les Radke, foroverseeing the Choice Voting elections of the KPFA Local Station Boardin Berkeley, California. The KPFK and KPFA elections were the firstLocal Station Board elections under the new Pacifica Foundationby-laws, and together represent the largest known use of Choice Votingin California in recent history.

At the retreat on May 23rd we elected our officers. I continue asPresident, and Paula Lee as Executive Vice President. Dave Kadlecektook on the job of Treasurer, and Rob Dickinson that of Chief FinancialOfficer. We left Secretary vacant, and at our June meeting, electedJim Lindsay to that position.

That's all the space I have for this report (but see the article on SCA14). I wanted to tell you about our testimony on voting equipment tothe Secretary of State's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, but thatwill have to wait until the next newsletter.

--Steve ChessinPresident, Californians for Electoral Reform

********************************************************************

WILL CALIFORNIA VOTERS PROTECT POLITICAL MINORITIES?

Californians have been tolerant when they have voted on whether or notto expand voting rights. In 1911, California's male voters voted topermit women to vote, while most other states said "No" to women'ssuffrage. Male voters in Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, NewYork, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakotaand Wisconsin all voted against women's suffrage between 1906 and1915. In November 1974, California voters amended the stateConstitution to permit ex-felons to vote. Proposition Ten, the "Rightto Vote" proposition, also granted the right to vote to mentally illpersons. It passed in 52 of California's 58 counties. In March 2002,the voters approved Proposition 43, which added language to the StateConstitution that all valid votes should be counted. It passed inevery county.

ROLLING BACK RIGHTSIn our next election, on Nov. 2, we will be asked if we want to rollback voting rights. The "Voter Choice Open Primary" initiative(Proposition 62) will ask whether we want to remove minor partycandidates from general election ballots for congressional and stateoffices. California's minor parties are cautiously optimistic that thevoters will not take this exclusionary step.

The initiative says that all candidates for Congress and for stateoffice will run on a single primary ballot in March. The onlycandidates who could possibly appear on the November ballot would bethe two highest vote-getters from the March primary.

California used a unified primary ballot - that is, a single primaryballot that contained all candidates from all parties - in 1998 and2000. Also, California has used that type of primary in all specialelections since 1967.

In all those elections, the top vote getter from each party advanced tothe November election, so the system in those past elections did notkeep minor party members off the November ballot. But because theprimary used in 1998 and 2000, and in special elections, is the same asthe primary proposed by the new initiative, one can use the resultsfrom those years to predict what will happen if the initiative takeseffect.

In all 408 elections in which this type of primary was used, onlyDemocrats or Republicans ever placed first or second - except in 12obvious cases when only one major party member was running. Even AudieBock, who really was elected to the Legislature in 1999 as a Green, didnot place first or second in her primary. These 408 examplesdemonstrate the Voter Choice Open Primary would, in reality, leaveCalifornians with only Democrats and Republicans to vote for inNovember.

HOW ABOUT INDEPENDENTS?California has more than 600,000 registered minor party members, and theVoter Choice Open Primary would leave them with no members of their own party tovote for in November.

Independent candidates would likewise be excluded from the Novemberballot. Under the rules for special elections held in Californiastarting in 1967, independent candidates appear on the special electionprimary ballot. Not once has any independent candidate ever placedfirst or second. This has not kept independent candidates off theballot in special run-off elections, because current law says that allindependent candidates who run in these elections automatically advanceto the run-off.

Under the proposed initiative, only the top two candidates can appearon the November ballot, so, based on California's historicalexperience, all independent candidates would likewise be excluded fromthe November ballot.

NEW IDEASSome voters may feel that it doesn't matter if minor party orindependent candidates are on the ballot in November or not. Minorparties seldom win partisan elections. However, minor party campaignsfor office have always been a method by which new political ideas wereintroduced to the electorate, and their voter appeal tested. Ideasthat attracted substantial support, over time, then came to be acceptedby the major parties.

The Liberty Party, in 1840, was the first political party to advocatethat slavery be abolished. The idea was so controversial at the time,Liberty Party candidates were sometimes stopped by mob action fromspeaking. However, as support for the Liberty Party grew, so didsupport for its principles, until a new major party was formed to stopthe spread of slavery into the territories. That new party, theRepublican Party, displaced one of the older major parties when itelected Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Other ideas that were first popularized by minor parties were women'ssuffrage, direct election of U.S. senators, worker's compensation,anti-trust legislation, restrictions on child labor, recognition ofcollective bargaining and social security.

The Voter Choice Open Primary also violates the spirit of a law passedby Congress in 1872, (which requires all states to hold theircongressional elections in November of even-numbered years,) by forcingminor parties in California to restrict their congressional campaignsto a period of time far from the autumn campaign season.

Jesse Ventura, Reform Party candidate for governor of Minnesota, onlypolled 3 percent of the vote in Minnesota's open primary in September1998. But then he received public funding, was able to afford TVadvertising and went on to win in November. Under the Voter ChoiceOpen Primary, he couldn't have been on the November ballot. Butbecause he was, turnout in Minnesota rose to 60 percent. No otherstate in a recent midterm election has had that good a turnout.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 14 is The Voter Empowerment and RestoreDemocracy Amendment, introduced by State Senator John Vasconcellos(D-Santa Clara). It is a collection of various reforms, on most ofwhich CfER has no position. However, it does mandate IRV for allprimary, general, special, and recall elections, as well as for allConstitutional offices from State Assembly to Governor, and because ofthat CfER supports it.

THE OTHER REFORMS IN SCA 14 ARE:- "Clean Money" public financing of all campaigns;- a ban against campaign consultants engaging in lobbying;- non-binding "None of the Above" (NOTA) option on ballots for Constitutional offices;- a ban on independent expenditures in elections;- allowing non-affiliated ("Decline to State") voters to vote in any party's primary;- extending term limits to twelve years each in the Assembly and State Senate;- increasing the size of the Assembly and State Senate to at least one Assembly person for every 300,000 residents, and at least one State Senator for every 600,000 residents;- reducing the vote needed to pass the budget from two-thirds to a simple majority;- re-assessing business property when 51 percent of the ownership changes hands;- reducing the vote needed to raise taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent;- taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature, and requiring Assembly districts to "nest" inside State Senate districts.

SCA 14 is designed to be a compromise package; no one is expected tolike everything in it, but the bill's author hopes that most peoplewill feel that what they like outweighs what they dont like. Manyelements are very controversial, even among CfER members, particularlythe Clean Money provision and reducing the budget vote form two-thirdsto simple majority. Some are of questionable constitutionality; SCA 14does contain a severability clause, just in case.

In order to get on the ballot, SCA 14 must be passed by a two-thirdsvote in each of the Assembly and the State Senate. It faced its firsthurdle on June 16th, when it was heard in the State Senate Electionsand Reapportionment Committee. It passed out of committee on aparty-line vote, the three Democrats voting in favor, and the twoRepublicans not voting. CfER President Steve Chessin did attempt totestify in favor of the bill, but was interrupted by the committeechair because time was growing short. The bill goes next to the SenateConstitutional Amendments Committee, where Steve will get anotheropportunity to testify.

Because it requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, if SCA 14makes it to the ballot at all it will probably be considerably changedfrom its present form. The CfER board has decided that it will supportSCA 14 while it is in the legislature as long as it contains IRV, andwill re-evaluate that support if and when it makes it to the ballot. Weare using SCA 14 to learn how bills really make it through thelegislature (or not), and to identify and build relationships withlegislators who support IRV. (For example, the original NOTA languagein SCA 14 was in direct conflict with the IRV language. CfER workedwith the bill's author to resolve the conflict, and supplied draftlanguage that was used by the Legislative Counsel as a starting point.)If it does make it to the ballot with the IRV language intact, but withother provisions that many of our members find objectionable, we mightend up with no position on it at all. But we will have learned what itwill take to get an IRV bill through the legislature.

--Steve Chessin[Editor's Note: Since this article was written, SCA 14 died incommittee.]

********************************************************************

SANTA MONICA CfER CHAPTER GOING STRONG

Santa Monica Ranked Voting, the Santa Monica chapter of Californiansfor Electoral Reform, was formed in January by Julie Walters, a CfERboard member, and Amy Connolly. The group has monthly meetings, andmaintains the only web site dedicated to a CfER chapter. Our focus hasbeen to promote Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Choice Voting for SantaMonica, and to educate the community about these reforms.

As part of our effort to educate the community, we have spoken to twoneighborhood organizations. We have found neighborhood meetings to begood places to meet community leaders and politically active people.We have encouraged these organizations to use ranked voting systems fortheir board elections. One of the neighborhood organizations, theWilshire/Montana Neighborhood Coalition, voted on July 10th with an 80%majority, to adopt IRV for election of its officers. We have alsospoken to other local groups, such as the Santa Monica chapter of theLeague of Women Voters, and the Commission on the Status of Women inSanta Monica. The former included an article that we wrote about ChoiceVoting in their most recent newsletter, The Voter. At our suggestion,the latter intends to mention Choice Voting when it submits its firstformal report on the status of women to city officials.

Attendees of our meetings have included elected officials, candidatesfor office and community leaders. We have also organized mockelections at public festivals. At the Santa Monica Earth Day festival,we asked attendees to vote for their Favorite Celestial Object (besidesEarth); at the Santa Monica festival, we asked for ballots for FavoriteSaint (besides Monica). The winners of both elections were determinedwith IRV. These events were great for outreach, and also attracted newmembers, since we asked voters to give us their email addresses so wecould send them the results.

One major source of publicity for our group has been a study weperformed on recent Santa Monica elections, which showed that votersoften do not cast all votes allotted to them under the current votingsystem. A press release we wrote about the study led to articles inthree local papers. Chapters in cities whose officials are electedat-large may easily conduct a similar study. Details on the study canbe found at our website, www.smrankedvoting.org, under the BreakingNews link. This site has been a crucial part of our outreach effort,since we can easily refer people to it for meeting times, news, andways to get involved.

We are now in the process of launching endorsement lists for supportersof IRV and Choice Voting in Santa Monica to sign. We will also conductcandidate surveys before the upcoming City Council elections to assessthe level of support for Choice Voting and IRV among current andpotential council members.

Anyone in the area who is interested in getting involved is encouragedto visit our website for information and upcoming meeting dates.

--Julie Waters and Amy Connolly

********************************************************************

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS SUPPORTS IRV IN CALIFORNIA

The League of Women Voters of California now have a position supportingInstant Runoff Voting in California for executive offices at the stateand local level. This position came after a two-year study ofalternative election systems by local League organizations throughoutthe state of California and after it was discussed and debated at thestate League of Women Voters Convention.

The official position reads:

Support election systems for executive offices, both at the state and local levels, that require the winner to receive a majority of the votes, as long as the majority is achieved using a voting method such as Instant Runoff Voting, rather than a second separate runoff election.

So if you are working on a local IRV campaign, call the local League ofWomen Voters to get involved. This position was used by the LWVBerkeley, Albany, Emeryville to support IRV in the Berkeley campaignand the League worked hard on the campaign. Thank you League of WomenVoters!